Leveson inquiry: A summary

Was the Leveson inquiry an anti climax, or will his report lead to changes in the media world?

Lord Justice Leveson was appointed to address the culture, practice and ethics of the British press following the phone hacking scandal at the News of the World. He opened hearings on November 14^th saying failure within the media affects us all, which is why one simple question would remain at the heart of the inquiry: "who guards the guardians?"

The press is currently self-regulated by the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), which consists of representatives of the major publishers and has no legal powers. Newspapers and magazines can decide whether to contribute to the cost of, and adhere to the rulings of the commission, with many high-profile titles abstaining from any of these voluntary obligations.

There has been feverish hype in the run up to today's (November 29^th) release  of the Leveson inquiry, with politicians attempting to pre-empt the findings in order to quell any anticipation that it would lead to any groundbreaking reforms. The reality of the report is that piecemeal concessions will be made that broadly fit in line with the recommendations. Furthermore, the report seems in itself quite reserved and lacking in imagination.

Here's a brief overview of what Lord Leveson had to say, and how it may implicate the running of the press:

Future press regulation

The most notable and consistent recommendation in the report, as well as the one that will most likely be implemented, is the failure of the Press Complaints Commission and the need for an 'independent and effective system of self-regulation'. Considering that the PCC was set up in the same vein this sounds like a reinvigorated attempt to replicate PCC in a new light.

But it will be more than a simple rebranding, and Leveson's recommendations are likely to lead to a reformed system. But as far as legal powers go, the newly reformed bogy is not likely to enjoy power bestowed from Westminster for some time.

Leveson's recommendations for a self-regularity body are that there should be a kite mark to represent trusted journalism. The body will enforce accountability and will act in the public interest, as well as protecting whistle blowing journalists who feel they are being asked to do things contrary to the code.

Criminal law

Leveson recommends that increased powers are available for the breaches of the Data Protection Act (largely not press related) and goes into some detail about costs and damages.

The press and the police and policians

The classic 'off-the-record' briefing should be discontinued, under Levesons recommendations, replaced by terms 'non-reportable briefing' or 'embargoed briefing'. All contact with the press should be on record and police officers should exercise more responsibility when communicating about an issue.

In a similar light politicians will be expected to be more transparent about their dealings with the press, and are recommended to act on an issue, rather than attempting to develop relationships with the press.

Online regulation

Regulating the citizen journalist is a notoriously difficult task, and Lord Leveson has spent some time unveiling that this is in fact the case. The report notes that enforcing law and regulation online is 'problematic', and "burdensome or insensitive regulation would make it even harder for British newspaper groups to survive," considering people can write what they like online.

Early comment:

Nick Robinson Political editor tells the World at One: "He [Leveson] is trying to bridge the gap between those people who want self regulation and those who want state regulation. Leveson has proposed independent self regulation, underpinned by the law."

Dan Hodges writes in his Daily Telegraph blog: "This is not about Milly Dowler - it's a battle for power and Leveson has picked his side."

Iain Watson Political correspondent, BBC News tweets: "Measured response from the Pm but clear message to the press 'help me avoid a new law by better regulating yourselves."